Google Invades ISP, OpenDNS Turf With Google Public DNS Faster, better, more secure...and more money for Google... Tipped by Oregonian 
Whether it breaks the core functionality of the Internet or not, there's very few ISPs left who aren't using DNS redirection advertising. The "service" essentially creates an entirely new revenue stream for ISPs, by presenting users with an ad-laden search portal instead of the traditional page not found error when they mistype a URL or enter a non-existent one. Given the money being made by ISPs and operations like OpenDNS, it makes sense that Google today announced they're jumping into this arena with Google Public DNS. Like ISPs, Google argues they're providing an improved "experience," not simply trying to cash in on clumsy typists: The average Internet user ends up performing hundreds of DNS lookups each day, and some complex pages require multiple DNS lookups before they start loading. This can slow down the browsing experience. Our research has shown that speed matters to Internet users, so over the past several months our engineers have been working to make improvements to our public DNS resolver to make users' web-surfing experiences faster, safer and more reliable. At launch Google says they won't be utilizing behavioral ad redirection, but given Google's an ad company -- it seems unlikely things will stay that way. Google's initial sales pitch for the service is about performance, privacy, and general network altruism. Google's also initially promising not to use the data collected for profit. Ultimately though, the idea they'll leave billions in user tracking and behavioral ad revenue untouched as the project evolves -- seems unlikely. More likely is that, unlike ISPs, Google wants to make a valuable consumer DNS service first -- and then prop the project up with revenue at a later date. For broader context, total DNS server meltdowns used to be a regular occurrence for even the biggest ISP a few years back. Each outage acted as an advertisement for OpenDNS, an operation that's since become very popular among our users. OpenDNS handles 20 million DNS requests a day, has 15 million users, and generates (as of 2008) $20,000 per day off of ads presented after URL errors. What keeps customers onboard? OpenDNS offers users a slew of network management options, anti-phishing protection, website filters, and (depending on the DNS servers you were using) a faster browsing experience. As ISPs discovered that OpenDNS was eroding a possible revenue stream (redirection portal ads) and doing a better job at running DNS servers then they were, many ISPs rushed to offer DNS redirection systems of their own -- with various degrees of success. Most ISPs were so blinded by the cash, they implemented the service without adding value, tools, or even informing users. A number of ISPs didn't bother to make sure the "opt out" process worked (cough, Embarq) and others didn't offer "clean" DNS servers for users who didn't want to participate. When Earthlink was among the first ISPs to use DNS redirection back in 2006, they mistakenly brushed aside the concerns of " ISP geeks" entirely. DSL Extreme had to scrap their system after user complaints. More recently, we're starting to see ISPs smarten up and realize that it's about more than just making a buck off of mistyped URLs. ISPs are now competing with third party DNS operations. Comcast has interestingly been one of the smarter ISPs on this front, implementing DNS redirection, but also offering users value in terms of a new DNS health portal, clean DNS servers and a functional opt-out process -- all documented transparently via the RFC process and with an ongoing conversation with our users. Google of course belatedly wants to hone in this evolving DNS market, just as they do every other ad market. Google's entry is a warning shot to ISPs who still haven't beefed up their DNS servers -- or those ISPs that are using DNS redirection but doing a crappy job of it. ISPs should have already figured out that offering great DNS servers and useful DNS tools is now a competitive differentiator. With Google's entry, ISPs who haven't should be getting a wake up call shortly. As for OpenDNS, founder David Ulevitch shares his thoughts on Google's launch over at OpenDNS. Not too surprisingly, he tries to downplay Google's move as a threat to OpenDNS, even though the threat is undeniable. It's not clear what else you can say when the Internet's most powerful company aims its cannons directly at a niche you've been quietly cultivating for half a decade. Honestly, it's a little surprising it took Google this long to identify that the niche is worth targeting. Users interested in using Google's new DNS system can head here for instructions and technical specifics. Those who've used OpenDNS should let us know which service is faster for you in our comment section below.
|
 |  | jus10
join:2009-08-04
Sterling, VA Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Re: Some more info on Goggle DNS & some speed tests Fortunately I don't consider Gizmodo as intelligent commentary on well, anything. Their work is more on the sensationalism get page views angle which I'm sure will be ripe with this announcement. As for the OpenDNS guy, well, he has to protect his business. I certainly trust Google more than OpenDNS but YMMV.
Given the recent dns-hijacking by ISP such as Comcast, I'm glad to have the option to have a sane option. I'm not sure I'd use this, but its nice to have the option. | |
| | | | | Re: Some more info on Goggle DNS & some speed tests Why in the world would you trust Google more than OpenDNS? | |
| | | | | | Re: Some more info on Goggle DNS & some speed tests Pretty colors! | |
| | | |  r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX | I don't trust either, but at least google gives me great free services so I would rather they profit from my usage data.
Resistance is Futile!!
--
Republicans: less fiscally conservative than that other party. | |
|
| | | I've been using OpenDNS for a couple of years now, but heck, I'll give Google DNS a shot.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own." | |
| |  Woody79_00I run Linux am I still a PC?Premium
join:2004-07-08
united state | TKjunkmail:
I am the biggest Google fan there is, I LOVe Google products, they have helped shape the web in a great way, and have help fund some of the best Open-Source Software around. Firefox was funded primarily with Google(through the partnership for Firefox having the Google search box in the top right)
that being said, Google Public DNs and OpenDNs are and will be the same.
Google DNs will be just like ClosedDNS..sorry its OpenDNs right?
The fact is OpenDNs is really ClosedDNS..its a garbae service that redirects users to ad-laden portal pages full of non-sense and garbage just to make a buck.
The ICANN(Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) Recently spoke out againts DNS-Redirection like Closed DNS, Comcast, and others have rolled out...stating it could hard the fundamental foundations of the internet
»www.networkworld.com/news/2009/1···arm.html
The Good news is the ICANN is moving to "ban" DNS-Redirection...about darn time...if you mistype a url, the user should receive an nxdomain error(File not found, or the approriate error message) not some rediirect to a portal page. You can read the ICANN memo below
»www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld···9-en.pdf
What happens when OpenDNS portal page gets hacked, and some hacker uses it to foist drive-by exploits or malware on its users?
The ICANN addressed that above scenario as to why DNS redirection is dangerous..you really have no idea if the page your requesting really is the page you wanted...censoring could be going on and you would not know the wiser.
thankfully the ICANN is moving to ban this despicable practice of DNS hijacking and redirection ISP and closed DNS call "a helper"
in the meantime kiddies, if you want just good old fasioned "REAL" DNS
change your DNS Servers to
4.2.2.1
4.2.2.2
those are the National DNS Servers run by Level 3 networks...other DNS Servers fetch records they can't find from those National Servers...paid for by public tax funds
No DNs redirects
No DNS Advertisements
NO BS
just plain DNS | |
| | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Some more info on Goggle DNS & some speed tests now if only ICANN could ban adware, spyware, malware, virus laden pages from taking up the mistyped URLs. the ones where a company registers mispellings to get people to download AV2009 and other banner spawned malware.
which of course i one of the many reasons i went to firefox so many years ago.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Re: Some more info on Goggle DNS & some speed tests Which do you want, a net neutral internet where you aren't directed around based on someone's moral or commercial agenda, or a filtered internet where some (but not all) of the bad is blocked but eventually having to deal with someone's moral or commercial agenda that will differ from your own views? You can't have it both ways. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Some more info on Goggle DNS & some speed tests I want a public internet that is just that - open to the public in a safe and user friendly way and is provided with a way to protect the netizens that choose to use it's public ways.
If you want to register an address, then you do it publicly and with information that can be and will be verified. How and why DNS registration was turned into something people can do anon is beyond me. That should have never been allowed and that should be removed. | |
|
| | | | You know , I like opendns. Matter of fact I love the product so much I actually pay for the service.
It allows me to load the dns settings onto a local dns server to me and my customers. And prevents a ton of virus and malware issues. Not to mention it also helps my customers keep their kids and workers off porn sites.
I like opendns and I am not offended if they get hacked or hijacked , you know why ? no company is perfect and the crap they have blocked all along is nice not having to deal with. If one virus or such gets through then so be it , the av product should pick it up and eliminate.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
| | |  NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Woody79_00:those are the National DNS Servers run by Level 3 networks...other DNS Servers fetch records they can't find from those National Servers...paid for by public tax funds Seriously? I had no idea. Hmmm. I can't prove it, either.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Windstream
 ·VOIPo
1 edit | Re: Some more info on Goggle DNS & some speed tests said by NormanS:said by Woody79_00:those are the National DNS Servers run by Level 3 networks...other DNS Servers fetch records they can't find from those National Servers...paid for by public tax funds Seriously? I had no idea. Hmmm. I can't prove it, either. I know me either :-/ we must be searching in the wrong interwebs.
P.s. It. 4.2.2.1 trough 4.2.2.6 that IP range is an Anycast range and should route near to you depending on your ISP.
--
ASUS M4A79T Deluxe | AMD Phenom II x3 720 BE AM3 w/4 Cores @ 3.41Ghz(OC) | 4Gb DDR3 Memory @ 1600mhz | Sapphire ATI HD4870 1GB 800mhz/1000mhz(OC) | 2x500GB HDD's Raid 0 | Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Build 7600 (RTM) | Windstream DSL 12m (14.9m Sync)/766k | |
|
| | | | said by Woody79_00:The fact is OpenDNs is really ClosedDNS..its a garbae service that redirects users to ad-laden portal pages full of non-sense and garbage just to make a buck. OpenDNS allows you to disable redirecting. I've gotten no ads whatsoever. Been using it for quite a while now with only one issue - I wish I didn't have to deal with it in the first place. DNS feels like an archaic technology and I've been eagerly anticipating its demise (or enhancement). | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Windstream
·VOIPo
| Re: Some more info on Goggle DNS & some speed tests said by ReVeLaTeD:DNS feels like an archaic technology and I've been eagerly anticipating its demise (or enhancement). What would you suggest replace it? | |
| | | | | | | Re: Some more info on Goggle DNS & some speed tests said by Napsterbater:said by ReVeLaTeD:DNS feels like an archaic technology and I've been eagerly anticipating its demise (or enhancement). What would you suggest replace it? Don't know. But if IPv4 can be enhanced, I can't imagine why DNS can't be. Ideally I would love a situation where name resolution isn't provided by an ISP or other company. | |
| | | | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Some more info on Goggle DNS & some speed tests said by ReVeLaTeD:Ideally I would love a situation where name resolution isn't provided by an ISP or other company. Here is the problem. Somebody has to run the root servers. And, if you run your own DNS server, you can't run it as "authoritative" for any domain, save your own. If you don't have a domain, you can't run authoritative DNS.
Everybody hitting the root servers probably doesn't scale. And somebody has to run authoritative DNS for the various domains out there. So DNS will always have to be run by some company; or, perhaps, government agency (assumes you can place greater faith in government than business; but both are "corporations", in a sense, with their own interests ahead of anybody else's interests).
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | | |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
·Vitelity VOIP
| said by ReVeLaTeD: Ideally I would love a situation where name resolution isn't provided by an ISP or other company. You're a single software install away from providing your own DNS resolution. Anyone can run a recursive resolver, just the same as anyone can run their own email or web server.
Lack of technical ability is the key reason users rely on ISPs or external companies for anything other than the routing of IP packets. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Some more info on Goggle DNS & some speed tests said by espaeth:said by ReVeLaTeD: Ideally I would love a situation where name resolution isn't provided by an ISP or other company. You're a single software install away from providing your own DNS resolution. Anyone can run a recursive resolver, just the same as anyone can run their own email or web server. Lack of technical ability is the key reason users rely on ISPs or external companies for anything other than the routing of IP packets. Let me clarify.
In my mind, the client workstation should be the one doing the resolution to an IP. No server. Just part of the workstation's functionality. Same sort of concept as with virus protection software - the machine downloads a name resolution file each day. That would allow the client to, when attempting to reach a name that doesn't exist in the file, send back an instant prompt that it wasn't located, instead of having to attempt a contact first.
Just a wild eyed theory. All I'm saying is that with the current DNS structure, you're held hostage to (A) the expense of making and managing a DNS server or (B) the inconvenience of other DNS providers with ads and invalid not found pages. | |
| | | | | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
1 edit | Re: Some more info on Goggle DNS & some speed tests said by ReVeLaTeD:In my mind, the client workstation should be the one doing the resolution to an IP. No server. Just part of the workstation's functionality. Same sort of concept as with virus protection software - the machine downloads a name resolution file each day. That would allow the client to, when attempting to reach a name that doesn't exist in the file, send back an instant prompt that it wasn't located, instead of having to attempt a contact first. There are at least two major problems with this:
1) No client machine is going to have terabytes of storage just for global DNS resolution.
2) DNS records are updated every second of every day, and responses can vary depending on the source IP of query.
That's sort of like suggesting instead of having search engines we should all store a copy of every bit of content available on the Internet on client workstations and perform searches on local disk.
I think if you do a bit of research into how DNS works you'll see that architecturally it's the best solution to the problem, though enhancements can still be made with regards to global load balancing enhancement and security. (ie, DNSSec and beyond)
said by ReVeLaTeD:All I'm saying is that with the current DNS structure, you're held hostage to (A) the expense of making and managing a DNS server or You've invested more "expense" posting your reply.
1) Click link: »ntcanuck.com/downloads.htm
2) Install
3) Enjoy
said by ReVeLaTeD:(B) the inconvenience of other DNS providers with ads and invalid not found pages. Only when you mistype the domain. Put it in perspective: it's a mistyped domain -- you weren't going to get what you thought you were typing no matter what approach you use. | |
| | | | | | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | said by ReVeLaTeD:Let me clarify. In my mind, the client workstation should be the one doing the resolution to an IP. No server. Just part of the workstation's functionality. That is pretty much the way it was done in the Arpanet. The local file to be updated was the 'hosts' file, if I understand how those things used to work. In a Windows domain environment, the domain administrator could push updates to the 'lmhosts' file.
They moved away from that when the Internet was created.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Some more info on Goggle DNS & some speed tests In particular, they moved away from that when hosts files began to take up megabytes of space (when megabytes was still a significant fraction of available space) and more importantly when searching began to take forever. A hosts file containing the entire internet would be more storage than most workstations have and take hours if not days to run a query on. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Some more info on Goggle DNS & some speed tests said by Anon2 :
In particular, they moved away from that when hosts files began to take up megabytes of space (when megabytes was still a significant fraction of available space) and more importantly when searching began to take forever. A hosts file containing the entire internet would be more storage than most workstations have and take hours if not days to run a query on.
In this day and age when a computer can be had that contains many GB's of hard drive space for dirt cheap - when the processors are in the quad fashion - when extra storage is a matter of a few hundred bucks - again, a possibility.
Keep in mind that I as a user might browse to 1% of all of the servers on the WWW. That means I don't really need to have all of the name resolutions local. Maybe a cache that stores them as they're requested, and updates them on a schedule. We already have the technology to do that - I'm more against the concept of a central "DNS server" hosted by someone else. That said, I'd probably be more confident if I knew that DNS servers were a decentralized commodity.
I don't know, I'm throwing wild ideas out. I just don't like the idea of a server whose sole purpose in life is to put a friendly name around the true address of the destination server so that a user doesn't have to remember that true address. It feels archaic.
Let's take IPv6. At its core it looks like a hex string - why not cater that hex string to the individual computer name and domain? So that if you type in said name, your workstation simply translates the name into hex in order to locate it? NO server, just reading a string of characters and turning it into something. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Some more info on Goggle DNS & some speed tests No offense, but maybe you should spend a few weeks thoroughly learning the technology you are trying to improve before throwing "wild ideas out".
The biggest thing you are missing are the dynamics of the current DNS structure. The way the current DNS structure works is actually quite brilliant considering the way it has to scale.
Another thing you are missing is that it does cache. Your computer already cache the address, your company's network DNS cache it, your isp DNS cache it, and so on until it has to reach the root. Which is the reason a major issue will take hours to replicate out across the net.
If you want local caching for the sites you frequent then modify your local lmhost file, then your problem is solved. Just don't come here whining when the company changes IP addresses and you can't find your stuff anymore and have no clue why. | |
| | | | | | | | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by ReVeLaTeD:Keep in mind that I as a user might browse to 1% of all of the servers on the WWW. That means I don't really need to have all of the name resolutions local. Maybe a cache that stores them as they're requested, and updates them on a schedule. We already have the technology to do that - I'm more against the concept of a central "DNS server" hosted by someone else. That said, I'd probably be more confident if I knew that DNS servers were a decentralized commodity. It is "decentralized". I use my ISP DNS servers. They are not the same ones used by Comcast customers, or Verzion customer, or Road Runner customers, or Qwest customers, or Charter customers.
They are also not the only ones I can use. There are, of course, a number of free DNS servers available, and, if I chose, pay DNS servers, as well. Hardly "centralized".
In addition, you do have the option of running a recursive, caching resolver locally, right on your computer.
I don't know, I'm throwing wild ideas out. I just don't like the idea of a server whose sole purpose in life is to put a friendly name around the true address of the destination server so that a user doesn't have to remember that true address. It feels archaic.
I sometimes drive a 1997 Plymouth Voyager. Compared with what is available today, it probably is archaic. But what is available today, commencing with the latest year models, is archaic, when compared with the first Otto internal combustion powered vehicles appearing on the road 130 years ago.
I was swapping war stories with a nephew returned from Iraq. The weapons he was issued are much newer models than I carried; but they still feel "archaic". Considering that they are based on ideas patented, and invented in the latter part of the 19th Century, they are archaic.
Just saying that "archaic" isn't always bad.
Let's take IPv6. At its core it looks like a hex string - why not cater that hex string to the individual computer name and domain? So that if you type in said name, your workstation simply translates the name into hex in order to locate it? NO server, just reading a string of characters and turning it into something.
Maybe I am missing something important here. Isn't that exactly what the 'hosts' file does? The reason the 'hosts' file was abandoned was because it didn't scale well, and who takes care of the updates?
With the DNS service, there is a set of authoritative DNS servers for each domain, and all the others are caching servers, who get the results, ultimately, from the authoritative servers. You've got to trust, at the least, the authoritative DNS servers.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | | | | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
1 edit | said by ReVeLaTeD:We already have the technology to do that - I'm more against the concept of a central "DNS server" hosted by someone else. That said, I'd probably be more confident if I knew that DNS servers were a decentralized commodity. DNS servers ARE decentralized. You have to perform 4 queries against completely different clusters of servers just to get the final IP resolution of an address like www.dslreports.com. DNS is decentralized from the core -- starting from the root servers that are operated by a combination of government and private companies across several different countries.
said by ReVeLaTeD: I just don't like the idea of a server whose sole purpose in life is to put a friendly name around the true address of the destination server so that a user doesn't have to remember that true address. It feels archaic. I think anyone who works in the industry would argue exactly the opposite. That's like saying we shouldn't publish phone books or offer directory services, you should just remember the phone numbers of anyone you'd want to dial. Hard-coding IP addresses into applications and services has been the biggest headache of any IT organization's operations -- name-based abstraction allows the IP address, which is tied to physical location, to change without having your method of accessing the site change.
They could pick up the dslreports.com servers from NAC.net on the east coast and drop them in a DC in the west coast and with DNS abstraction you would never have to change anything about how you access the system.
IP addressing is location centric, just like postal ZIP codes. That's why name-based abstraction makes all kinds of sense. | |
|
| | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
| said by Woody79_00:those are the National DNS Servers run by Level 3 networks...other DNS Servers fetch records they can't find from those National Servers...paid for by public tax funds The only true statement in that blurb is that Level(3) owns and operates the 4.2.2.x DNS servers. I don't believe Level(3) has accepted federal bailout dollars, so as of now those servers are not publicly funded.
These servers are also not part of any kind of standard DNS query chain. When people hear "root" servers they confuse that as being a central database that has all records, and that's just not the case. DNS often requires several requests to multiple servers to arrive at a final resolution, that's why they call servers that clients point at recursive resolvers.
For example, to look up www.dslreports.com you need to make 4 queries:
1) Locally stored "hints" file to get the IPs of the root servers
2) The DNS root servers (to find out which server to query about .com )
3) The gTLD servers (to find out which server to query about dslreports.com )
4) EasyDNS (to get the resolution to www.dslreports.com)
A recursive resolver performs all 4 queries for you and just returns the final result.
You can see this full query path by using DNS tools like dig and using the trace feature.
; <<>> DiG 9.3.6-P1-RedHat-9.3.6-4.P1.el5 <<>> +trace www.dslreports.com
;; global options: printcmd
. 451246 IN NS d.root-servers.net.
. 451246 IN NS e.root-servers.net.
. 451246 IN NS f.root-servers.net.
. 451246 IN NS g.root-servers.net.
. 451246 IN NS h.root-servers.net.
. 451246 IN NS i.root-servers.net.
. 451246 IN NS j.root-servers.net.
. 451246 IN NS k.root-servers.net.
. 451246 IN NS l.root-servers.net.
. 451246 IN NS m.root-servers.net.
. 451246 IN NS a.root-servers.net.
. 451246 IN NS b.root-servers.net.
. 451246 IN NS c.root-servers.net.
;; Received 500 bytes from 192.168.0.21#53(192.168.0.21) in 4 ms
com. 172800 IN NS B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.
com. 172800 IN NS K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.
com. 172800 IN NS A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.
com. 172800 IN NS F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.
com. 172800 IN NS E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.
com. 172800 IN NS L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.
com. 172800 IN NS G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.
com. 172800 IN NS I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.
com. 172800 IN NS C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.
com. 172800 IN NS H.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.
com. 172800 IN NS D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.
com. 172800 IN NS J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.
com. 172800 IN NS M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.
;; Received 496 bytes from 128.8.10.90#53(d.root-servers.net) in 73 ms
dslreports.com. 172800 IN NS ns1.easydns.com.
dslreports.com. 172800 IN NS ns2.easydns.com.
dslreports.com. 172800 IN NS ns6.easydns.net.
dslreports.com. 172800 IN NS remote1.easydns.com.
dslreports.com. 172800 IN NS remote2.easydns.com.
;; Received 233 bytes from 192.33.14.30#53(B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET) in 336 ms
www.dslreports.com. 1200 IN A 209.123.109.175
dslreports.com. 1200 IN NS remote2.easydns.com.
dslreports.com. 1200 IN NS ns1.easydns.com.
dslreports.com. 1200 IN NS ns2.easydns.com.
dslreports.com. 1200 IN NS remote1.easydns.com.
;; Received 204 bytes from 66.225.199.10#53(ns1.easydns.com) in 41 ms
| |
|
|  spewakR.I.P DadkinsPremium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1 | Nice Primer on the subject TK! Well done. 
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer!
| |
|
1 edit | Ping times Not sure if it matters I get about 11ms faster when pinging opendns servers. | |
| |  PhilRojo SolPremium
join:2001-06-11
Downers Grove, IL
kudos:2
1 edit | Re: Ping times That's a good point. For me, Google's DNS pings ~73ms versus OpenDNS ~6ms. I wonder which one I'll stick with? | |
| | |  manfmmdPremium
join:2003-01-14
Earth, TX
·CMA Access
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Ping times Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
P:\>ping 4.2.2.2
Pinging 4.2.2.2 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 4.2.2.2: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=56
Reply from 4.2.2.2: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=56
Reply from 4.2.2.2: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=56
Reply from 4.2.2.2: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=56
Ping statistics for 4.2.2.2:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 18ms, Maximum = 19ms, Average = 18ms
P:\>ping 208.67.222.222
Pinging 208.67.222.222 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 208.67.222.222: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=55
Reply from 208.67.222.222: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=55
Reply from 208.67.222.222: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=55
Reply from 208.67.222.222: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=55
Ping statistics for 208.67.222.222:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 19ms, Maximum = 20ms, Average = 19ms
P:\>ping 8.8.8.8
Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=239
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=239
Request timed out.
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=239
Ping statistics for 8.8.8.8:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 57ms, Maximum = 58ms, Average = 57ms
P:\>
They'll have to work on their response time and dropped packets..
Ping statistics for 8.8.8.8:
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 96, Lost = 4 (4% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 56ms, Maximum = 66ms, Average = 57ms
I'm showing OpenDNS to be on par with the 4.2.2.* crowd.
--
"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan | |
| | | |  birdfeedrPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
kudos:8 | Re: Ping times Ping time is not the same as DNS request response time. See this thread. »DNS Service Provider Performance Comparison
While it's info from last May, it may be pertinent. I am not sure the methodology used for data, but it appears the first-time request will not have the same response time as a second or third. For a more comprehensive test, that is. | |
| | | |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by manfmmd:I'm showing OpenDNS to be on par with the 4.2.2.* crowd. Only 4.2.2.* servers are CLEAN! with no hoops required.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
| NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by dcurrey:Not sure if it matters I get about 11ms faster when pinging opendns servers. Ping is not the best measure of the operation of a DNS server. Some kind of benchmark which actually attempts to resolve host names is a better test.
Nameserver Response Time (ms)
min/avg/max/stdev/retries
68.94.156.1 10.14/10.25/10.40/0.09/0
68.94.157.1 9.90/10.54/11.26/0.44/0
4.2.2.1 20.46/21.09/21.59/0.45/0
4.2.2.3 20.57/22.11/27.43/2.67/0
8.8.8.8 61.54/62.01/62.33/0.27/0
8.8.4.4 61.71/67.78/77.57/6.08/0
208.67.222.222 40.84/44.97/55.68/5.69/0
208.67.220.220 41.23/46.35/60.65/7.27/0
Also ...
Final benchmark results, sorted by nameserver performance:
(average cached name retrieval speed, fastest to slowest)
68. 94.157. 1 | Min | Avg | Max |Std.Dev|Reliab%|
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
+ Cached Name | 0.008 | 0.014 | 0.029 | 0.007 | 100.0 |
+ Uncached Name | 0.013 | 0.054 | 0.175 | 0.052 | 100.0 |
+ DotCom Lookup | 0.014 | 0.138 | 0.684 | 0.193 | 100.0 |
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
dnsr2.sbcglobal.net
DNS Anycast Address Pool2
68. 94.156. 1 | Min | Avg | Max |Std.Dev|Reliab%|
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
+ Cached Name | 0.009 | 0.014 | 0.030 | 0.007 | 100.0 |
+ Uncached Name | 0.012 | 0.054 | 0.192 | 0.055 | 100.0 |
+ DotCom Lookup | 0.015 | 0.166 | 0.529 | 0.168 | 100.0 |
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
dnsr1.sbcglobal.net
DNS Anycast Addressing
4. 2. 2. 6 | Min | Avg | Max |Std.Dev|Reliab%|
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
- Cached Name | 0.018 | 0.023 | 0.032 | 0.003 | 100.0 |
- Uncached Name | 0.021 | 0.074 | 0.231 | 0.052 | 100.0 |
- DotCom Lookup | 0.021 | 0.066 | 0.182 | 0.053 | 100.0 |
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
vnsc-lc-dsl.genuity.net
Level 3 Communications
4. 2. 2. 1 | Min | Avg | Max |Std.Dev|Reliab%|
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
- Cached Name | 0.019 | 0.023 | 0.036 | 0.004 | 100.0 |
- Uncached Name | 0.022 | 0.088 | 0.229 | 0.068 | 100.0 |
- DotCom Lookup | 0.023 | 0.083 | 0.215 | 0.059 | 100.0 |
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
vnsc-pri.sys.gtei.net
Level 3 Communications
204.194.234.200 | Min | Avg | Max |Std.Dev|Reliab%|
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
- Cached Name | 0.021 | 0.026 | 0.041 | 0.005 | 100.0 |
- Uncached Name | 0.033 | 0.089 | 0.217 | 0.053 | 100.0 |
- DotCom Lookup | 0.025 | 0.126 | 0.211 | 0.065 | 100.0 |
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
··· no official Internet DNS name ···
··· unknown owner ···
204.194.232.200 | Min | Avg | Max |Std.Dev|Reliab%|
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
- Cached Name | 0.021 | 0.026 | 0.043 | 0.006 | 100.0 |
- Uncached Name | 0.033 | 0.101 | 0.244 | 0.063 | 100.0 |
- DotCom Lookup | 0.024 | 0.130 | 0.214 | 0.058 | 100.0 |
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
··· no official Internet DNS name ···
··· unknown owner ···
208. 67.220.220 | Min | Avg | Max |Std.Dev|Reliab%|
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
- Cached Name | 0.039 | 0.043 | 0.053 | 0.004 | 100.0 |
- Uncached Name | 0.046 | 0.127 | 0.278 | 0.069 | 100.0 |
- DotCom Lookup | 0.048 | 0.163 | 0.237 | 0.066 | 100.0 |
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
resolver2.opendns.com
OpenDNS, LLC
208. 67.222.222 | Min | Avg | Max |Std.Dev|Reliab%|
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
- Cached Name | 0.040 | 0.046 | 0.063 | 0.006 | 100.0 |
- Uncached Name | 0.047 | 0.132 | 0.318 | 0.077 | 100.0 |
- DotCom Lookup | 0.041 | 0.158 | 0.232 | 0.064 | 100.0 |
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
resolver1.opendns.com
OpenDNS, LLC
8. 8. 4. 4 | Min | Avg | Max |Std.Dev|Reliab%|
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
- Cached Name | 0.060 | 0.067 | 0.087 | 0.007 | 100.0 |
- Uncached Name | 0.071 | 0.159 | 0.323 | 0.067 | 100.0 |
- DotCom Lookup | 0.082 | 0.172 | 0.259 | 0.047 | 100.0 |
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
··· no official Internet DNS name ···
Level 3 Communications
8. 8. 8. 8 | Min | Avg | Max |Std.Dev|Reliab%|
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
- Cached Name | 0.059 | 0.067 | 0.080 | 0.006 | 100.0 |
- Uncached Name | 0.067 | 0.159 | 0.324 | 0.074 | 100.0 |
- DotCom Lookup | 0.091 | 0.181 | 0.257 | 0.052 | 100.0 |
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
any-in-0808.1e100.net
Level 3 Communications
UTC: 2009-12-03, from 20:47:01 to 20:47:47, for 00:46.316
The Google DNS servers are the poorest performers in two different benchmarks. | |
|
| |
See 19 replies to this post | |
AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | A Positive There is a positive to this, it will force the DNS redirection issue to the forefront - the Google effect... | |
| | |
 IIIBradIIIComm M-E-L Instr
join:2000-09-28
Greer, SC | I'm no privacy hawk, but I'm no privacy hawk, but I cannot imagine giving Google access to every website that I ever visit, which is what you are doing when you use their DNS servers. If they want to truly compete they need to offer at least a privacy functionality whereby users can ensure that G isn't keeping track of usage/visits/lookups. | |
| |  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
·VOIPo
| Re: I'm no privacy hawk, but said by IIIBradIII:I'm no privacy hawk, but I cannot imagine giving Google access to every website that I ever visit, which is what you are doing when you use their DNS servers. If they want to truly compete they need to offer at least a privacy functionality whereby users can ensure that G isn't keeping track of usage/visits/lookups. My thoughts exactly. Everyone seems to forget that Google is a marketing company.....
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org | |
| | | | | IIIBradIIIComm M-E-L Instr
join:2000-09-28
Greer, SC | Re: I'm no privacy hawk, but said by Nightfall:said by IIIBradIII:I'm no privacy hawk, but I cannot imagine giving Google access to every website that I ever visit, which is what you are doing when you use their DNS servers. If they want to truly compete they need to offer at least a privacy functionality whereby users can ensure that G isn't keeping track of usage/visits/lookups. Heck, you are giving that information to someone. The question is, who do you trust the most? Do you trust your ISP? What about Google? What about OpenDNS? Personally, I would trust Google and OpenDNS more than I would Comcast or AT&T. Your ISP already has this information because your traffic runs over their hardware, so their ability to track by DNS is a wash. OpenDNS offers the privacy feature I mentioned above. Google's current offering in this space is entirely different than those two examples.
--
»www.FlightSimWorld.com
Remember, there are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.
Flight Simulator | |
| | | |  NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Comcast
·Callcentric
 ·Site5.com
| Re: I'm no privacy hawk, but said by IIIBradIII:said by Nightfall:said by IIIBradIII:I'm no privacy hawk, but I cannot imagine giving Google access to every website that I ever visit, which is what you are doing when you use their DNS servers. If they want to truly compete they need to offer at least a privacy functionality whereby users can ensure that G isn't keeping track of usage/visits/lookups. Heck, you are giving that information to someone. The question is, who do you trust the most? Do you trust your ISP? What about Google? What about OpenDNS? Personally, I would trust Google and OpenDNS more than I would Comcast or AT&T. Your ISP already has this information because your traffic runs over their hardware, so their ability to track by DNS is a wash. OpenDNS offers the privacy feature I mentioned above. Google's current offering in this space is entirely different than those two examples. »www.opendns.com/privacy/
Every organization has a different policy on privacy. You are right, opendns is the most well rounded. When the chips are down though, it really comes down to who you can trust. The privacy policy on opendns does have some good privacy protection elements, but there are a lot of loopholes that I can see just scanning down the page.
I guess the point I am trying to make here is that it really all does come down to who you trust the most. Google is no saint thats for sure, but I would use Google's DNS before I would use my crappy ISP DNS thats for sure.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net | |
| | | | | IIIBradIIIComm M-E-L Instr
join:2000-09-28
Greer, SC | Re: I'm no privacy hawk, but said by Nightfall:» www.opendns.com/privacy/Every organization has a different policy on privacy. You are right, opendns is the most well rounded. When the chips are down though, it really comes down to who you can trust. The privacy policy on opendns does have some good privacy protection elements, but there are a lot of loopholes that I can see just scanning down the page. I guess the point I am trying to make here is that it really all does come down to who you trust the most. Google is no saint thats for sure, but I would use Google's DNS before I would use my crappy ISP DNS thats for sure. That's fine, but you do so with full knowledge that Google will now know - in addition to your search history through their search engine - every site you visit. Of the 3 options you posed, Google is the one option most invasive of your privacy. Rather than rely on trust, something as personal as browsing habits are best left to either an organization that already knows them, or one that chooses to not remember them. So far, Google is choosing to USE them.
--
»www.FlightSimWorld.com
Remember, there are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.
Flight Simulator | |
|
| |  Don't give your privacy away to Google!
| |
| |  MSaukMSaukPremium
join:2002-01-17
Sandy, UT | Re: Don't give your privacy away to Google! better put your tin foil hats on fellas | |
| | |  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Re: Don't give your privacy away to Google! They have it now.
Who?
Major League Baseball. They can read your electronic organizer...FROM SPACE
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
|
| PhilRojo SolPremium
join:2001-06-11
Downers Grove, IL
kudos:2 | And what's going to happen if I do? Answer: nothing. | |
| | |  gigahurtzPremium
join:2001-10-20
Palm Coast, FL
·Bright House
| Re: Don't give your privacy away to Google! said by Phil:And what's going to happen if I do? Answer: nothing. Exactly. There is nothing wrong with using Google's DNS server. I love these people that thing everything is a conspiracy. Way too much time on their hands! | |
|
 KfedkaPremium
join:2005-05-06
Spokane, WA | Open DNS faster Tried some of my usual sites. OpenDNS loads faster. | |
| | | TOOO SLOW Maybe its because its early, but they are 17 hops away for me!
ns_bench
208.67.222.222 3.70/3.93/4.59/0.33/0
4.2.2.1 6.73/7.17/7.74/0.32/0
8.8.8.8 62.38/62.75/63.10/0.24/0
Clearly open dns is the fastest for me, 4.2.2.x is coming in a close second at 7ms average and google at 62ms isn't even worth trying... | |
| | | Dashboard makes the difference for me I like Google products and use Google Voice multiple times a day. But, OpenDNS has the dashboard feature which lets me block advertising sites from displaying ads on my screens and lets me check for malware/virus by looking at the top domains requested by my home network.
Unless Google follows suit with a dashboard with multiple features like OpenDNS has, it's a no brainer for me. OpenDNS is better with more features. | |
| | | Most people are clueless... ...about what a DNS is and won't touch it. Hell so many people don't know how to type a URL, they put it in the search box... | |
| | gigantePremium
join:2000-06-30
Anchorage, AK | Re: Most people are clueless... said by cowboyro:...about what a DNS is and won't touch it. Hell so many people don't know how to type a URL, they put it in the search box... You must know my mom - it annoys me SO MUCH when she does this. | |
| | | StojkoPremium
join:2007-10-20
St John's NL | Re: Most people are clueless... said by gigante:said by cowboyro:...about what a DNS is and won't touch it. Hell so many people don't know how to type a URL, they put it in the search box... You must know my mom - it annoys me SO MUCH when she does this. I hate it when people do that!
I'll stick with OpenDNS. Google knows enough about me already. Too much. | |
|
| |
 braden
join:2001-12-12
Aliso Viejo, CA
1 edit | Wait Just to clear up any confusion about whether or not there is ad redirection:
From Google's Public DNS FAQ:
How does Google Public DNS handle non-existent domains?
If you issue a query for a domain name that does not exist, Google Public DNS always returns an NXDOMAIN record, as per the DNS protocol standards. The browser should show this response as a DNS error. If, instead, you receive any response other than an error message (for example, you are redirected to another page), this could be the result of the following:
* A client-side application such as a browser plug-in is displaying an alternate page for a non-existent domain.
* Some ISPs may intercept and replace all NXDOMAIN responses with responses that lead to their own servers. If you are concerned that your ISP is intercepting Google Public DNS requests or responses, you should contact your ISP. | |
| |  wmcbrine213 251 145 96
join:2002-12-30
Laurel, MD
kudos:1 | Re: Wait Yes... it's annoying that the article goes on and on about something (ad redirection for failed lookups) that Google is NOT DOING, and something that they clearly state is not their purpose. I think we should take them at their word, until there's reason to do otherwise.
Google also talks about "burning the logs", and not correlating this data with search queries or other personal info.
--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 | |
| | | Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Wait Well, the point was to give context into what has been driving these DNS changes, and on the ISP level its been DNS redirection -- without any effort to make DNS tools that are useful -- which is why OpenDNS has been so successful.
I saw Google's claims that this is all about altruism and efficiency -- and maybe it is as it begins to take root among engineers. But there's billions upon billions to be made from redirection ads and user tracking, and I find it very hard to believe they just plan to not bother touching that revenue once the project evolves. | |
| | |  swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | And they reserve the right to change those policies whenever they want.
Like, say, when the service has become popular, the controversy has faded and it becomes profitable to gradually erode the privacy features. | |
| | | | Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | Re: Wait I think you hit right on it.
My guess is they're approaching this in the opposite way ISPs did.
When ISPs saw what OpenDNS was doing, they quickly just rushed to make a buck from DNS redirection ads, without presenting any valuable DNS-related services to consumers.
Google's going to start by creating a valuable DNS service, and the supporting profit model comes later.
Again, I have a hard time believing Google execs will leave billions in potential ad and tracking revenue just sitting there out of goodwill. | |
|
| |
gigahurtzPremium
join:2001-10-20
Palm Coast, FL Reviews:
·Bright House
| Relax!! Wow, some of you really need to relax. Who cares if Google knows the sites you visit? If you are going to sites that you'd be concerned about then I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself.
They are a marketing company so if they send an ad on a redirect page to me, who gives a shit?
If it's faster and runs more efficiently, i'll use it. It's that simple. I'm not doing anything illegal and I have no concerns with them knowing what sites I visit. I think some people just love to hate Google because it's the "cool" thing to do but love the fact that when Google pushes a product/service out other companies out there follow suit. | |
|
1 edit | Spam SPAM SPAM should be illegal PERIOD and its being going on via customized 404 pages for years and is a logical extension of SPAM SPAM SPAM and user based billing means YOU PAY FOR IT
YOU PAY FOR IT
YOU PAY FOR IT
got it!!
YOU PAY.
its creates a double revenue for them lets put flash on that page and really wack em good for mistakes YUP
lets put redirection several times and get that cap used up for crazy billing
ITS A SCAM
and trusting Google more then open dns what glue is that guy smoking sorry let me rephrase WHAT proof do you have that the cia/fbi run Google is more trust able then open dns which is a single company run by very well known people who aren't feds. | |
| | gigahurtzPremium
join:2001-10-20
Palm Coast, FL Reviews:
·Bright House
| Re: Spam SPAM SPAM said by chronoss2009:should be illegal PERIOD and its being going on via customized 404 pages for years and is a logical extension of SPAM SPAM SPAM and user based billing means YOU PAY FOR IT YOU PAY FOR IT YOU PAY FOR IT got it!! YOU PAY. its creates a double revenue for them lets put flash on that page and really wack em good for mistakes YUP lets put redirection several times and get that cap used up for crazy billing ITS A SCAM and trusting Google more then open dns what glue is that guy smoking sorry let me rephrase WHAT proof do you have that the cia/fbi run Google is more trust able then open dns which is a single company run by very well known people who aren't feds. GOOGLE IS OUT TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD.
LOL. Relax buddy, take a deep breath and relax. | |
|
| | relax yea um when we do that
govts take bribes and more corporations get power
me thinks that all of them need to like get out of the tubes period
go away , dont get mad just get away
do not beleive me go talk to a real hacker hten and ask his opinions go for it
notta one of any repute will say anyhting different and it is law in the USA to back door apps for govt agencies
think NSA and XP , and vista and now windows 7
and if you beleive MS go ahead and smoke more crack ...honestly you think were in the age of i trust govt or something with all that ACTA crap
phewy
google isn't all that well and nice as everyone thinks they will do the bare minimum to be the good guy most times, and remember those lovely chrome service terms.....
and as one poster said gather it all into one neat dbase package for data mining.
YUP i dont mind choice but not from google in this way.
better way would be to invest 20-30% in other opendns services and opendns
that would show your really about choice and helping. | |
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: relax But at that point Google could pull strings at OpenDNS and all your data are belong to them, right?
Seriously though, if you're afraid that Google will take all your DNS queries, map them to your IP address, profile you and hand you over to the government...don't use Google DNS. Use 4.2.2.4 or your ISP DNS...done.
As for me, if someone captured all my DNS requests it'd be like "Hmm, this guy likes to surf DSLR a lot, check e-mail, look up tech stories and download the occasional game mod." That's pretty much it. | |
|
| | Do I really care...... about these stupid redirects? Remember years ago when online advertising was going to change the world and suddenly everyone in the universe was bombarded with pop up ads? No one looked at those ads then and no one looks at these re-direct pages now. They look for the X to close the stupid thing or correct the URL and continue on. Of course now the little X has moved from the upper right corner to some other area of the page which causes the viewer to have to scan the page therby prompting your eyeballs to catch more info but the mindset is the same. Close the damn thing and go on. | |
|  jazzman916Life on the UpbeatPremium,MVM,ExMod 2004-10
join:2001-09-01
Birdland | opps I broke it 
Nameserver Response Time (ms)
min/avg/max/stdev/retries
4.2.2.1 19.00/19.60/20.00/0.49/0
4.2.2.2 19.00/19.60/20.00/0.49/0
8.8.8.8 20.00/20.20/21.00/0.40/0
8.8.4.4 failed
--
"Hoaxes use weaknesses in human behaviour to ensure they are replicated and distributed. In other words, hoaxes prey on the Human Operating System." --Stewart Kirkpatrick | |
| HoboJ
join:2008-03-27
Carrying Place, ON
kudos:1 | Eh, whatever I'll stick with opendns as my primary dns service. Though I've added googles' dns as a backup. | |
| | | Anticompetitive -- and a great way to spy The first thing that is of serious concern about this move is that it is anticompetitive. Google is in the Internet search advertising business; so, essentially, are ISPs who advertise via DNS redirection. (The pages often look very much like Google search results, with not just advertising but also search results which list sites to which the user may have intended to go.) In fact, many naive Internet users simply type search terms into the URL bar of their browsers, expecting the browser to magically take them to the right place or at least return appropriate search results. Due to DNS redirection (which is optional on every ISP that does it), there's a good chance that the user will actually be pointed toward what he or she is looking for.
Google, in essence, is attempting to cut off what is, IMHO, a legitimate revenue stream for one very useful form of competitive "search engine."
It's also found another great way to spy on Internet users. With your DNS queries flowing through it servers, it will know where you go, and will be able to merge this information with the dossiers it creates on users via GMail messages, Google Analytics spyware scripts, and DoubleClick spyware tracking cookies.
Wouldn't use this for the world.
--Brett Glass | |
|  MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY | Not so fast for meI used »www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm
and here are the results sorted in order of speed
4. 2. 2. 1 | Min | Avg | Max |Std.Dev|Reliab%|
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
- Cached Name | 0.008 | 0.010 | 0.014 | 0.001 | 100.0 |
- Uncached Name | 0.010 | 0.069 | 0.332 | 0.062 | 100.0 |
- DotCom Lookup | 0.017 | 0.052 | 0.119 | 0.035 | 100.0 |
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
vnsc-pri.sys.gtei.net
Level 3 Communications
4. 2. 2. 3 | Min | Avg | Max |Std.Dev|Reliab%|
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
- Cached Name | 0.008 | 0.010 | 0.013 | 0.001 | 100.0 |
- Uncached Name | 0.010 | 0.071 | 0.433 | 0.073 | 100.0 |
- DotCom Lookup | 0.020 | 0.068 | 0.137 | 0.033 | 100.0 |
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
vnsc-lc.sys.gtei.net
Level 3 Communications
4. 2. 2. 5 | Min | Avg | Max |Std.Dev|Reliab%|
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
- Cached Name | 0.008 | 0.011 | 0.016 | 0.002 | 100.0 |
- Uncached Name | 0.011 | 0.071 | 0.414 | 0.072 | 100.0 |
- DotCom Lookup | 0.017 | 0.065 | 0.198 | 0.042 | 100.0 |
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
vnsc-bak-dsl.genuity.net
Level 3 Communications
4. 2. 2. 4 | Min | Avg | Max |Std.Dev|Reliab%|
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
- Cached Name | 0.008 | 0.011 | 0.015 | 0.002 | 100.0 |
- Uncached Name | 0.011 | 0.074 | 0.339 | 0.066 | 100.0 |
- DotCom Lookup | 0.017 | 0.061 | 0.115 | 0.034 | 100.0 |
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
vnsc-pri-dsl.genuity.net
Level 3 Communications
208. 67.222.222 | Min | Avg | Max |Std.Dev|Reliab%|
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
+ Cached Name | 0.008 | 0.011 | 0.016 | 0.002 | 100.0 |
+ Uncached Name | 0.013 | 0.077 | 0.269 | 0.065 | 100.0 |
+ DotCom Lookup | 0.017 | 0.089 | 0.135 | 0.030 | 100.0 |
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
resolver1.opendns.com
OpenDNS, LLC
4. 2. 2. 6 | Min | Avg | Max |Std.Dev|Reliab%|
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
- Cached Name | 0.008 | 0.011 | 0.016 | 0.001 | 100.0 |
- Uncached Name | 0.011 | 0.080 | 0.354 | 0.068 | 100.0 |
- DotCom Lookup | 0.016 | 0.070 | 0.190 | 0.050 | 100.0 |
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
vnsc-lc-dsl.genuity.net
Level 3 Communications
4. 2. 2. 2 | Min | Avg | Max |Std.Dev|Reliab%|
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
- Cached Name | 0.008 | 0.011 | 0.014 | 0.001 | 100.0 |
- Uncached Name | 0.011 | 0.081 | 0.348 | 0.083 | 100.0 |
- DotCom Lookup | 0.017 | 0.077 | 0.156 | 0.039 | 100.0 |
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
vnsc-bak.sys.gtei.net
Level 3 Communications
208. 67.220.220 | Min | Avg | Max |Std.Dev|Reliab%|
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
+ Cached Name | 0.008 | 0.011 | 0.018 | 0.002 | 100.0 |
+ Uncached Name | 0.010 | 0.081 | 0.343 | 0.077 | 100.0 |
+ DotCom Lookup | 0.015 | 0.090 | 0.202 | 0.042 | 100.0 |
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
resolver2.opendns.com
OpenDNS, LLC
8. 8. 4. 4 | Min | Avg | Max |Std.Dev|Reliab%|
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
- Cached Name | 0.017 | 0.028 | 0.100 | 0.023 | 100.0 |
- Uncached Name | 0.023 | 0.172 | 1.373 | 0.253 | 100.0 |
- DotCom Lookup | 0.025 | 0.124 | 0.215 | 0.041 | 100.0 |
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
··· no official Internet DNS name ···
Level 3 Communications
8. 8. 8. 8 | Min | Avg | Max |Std.Dev|Reliab%|
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
- Cached Name | 0.015 | 0.030 | 0.151 | 0.030 | 100.0 |
- Uncached Name | 0.021 | 0.198 | 2.583 | 0.414 | 100.0 |
- DotCom Lookup | 0.026 | 0.122 | 0.207 | 0.041 | 100.0 |
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
google-public-dns-a.google.com
Level 3 Communications
--
Check out my awesome city of MxxTopia »mxxtopia.myminicity.com/ind or »mxxtopia.myminicity.com (the more people visit, the bigger it is) | |
|
1 edit | a bit of history of google and dell DRM you know what that is eh.....
»blog.opendns.com/2007/05/22/goog···he-page/
and it goes further then this if you really dig on it it is INTEL
and tons a weird stuff they tried to do and wold if they could.
as many say if your skilled and really want control of cache set up your own DNS and share it with a few friends and make your own privacy policy and remove it as required
and not only will they have you emails , you cell android calls, the searches you do but now notn content wiht that WHERE you actually visit WHY?
cause all the torrent sites and p2p left are all dark hidden places
this will tell them where you go so DO NOT USE IT, USIING p2p of any kind. ALSO setup your own DNS server if you use p2p.
If its blocked to bad your done and spied on.
and anyone htink th ereason its so slow yet ( tin foil hat time) is because htey actually are copying and looking at data? | |
|
| |
|
|
Some more info on Goggle DNS & some speed tests
I'll just keep it in the back of my head for use like 4.2.2.2 
